How Do Elites Define Influence? Personality and Respect as ... · By "networks," elites are known to other elites and operate within elite systems where personal ties, or social capital,

How Do Elites Define Influence?Personality and Respect as

Sources of Social PowerAlexis YamokoskiOhio State UniversityJoshua Kjentlf Dubrow*Polish Academy of Sciences

How well do theories of elites' sources of social power match the reality asperceived by the elites themselves? Using data from interviews with 312elites from a large midwestern American city, and employing an inductivecoding method situated in grounded theory, we use the constructivistapproach in listening to elites' definitions of their sources of social power.Integrating Weber's notion of charisma and the interactionist literature onpower, we hypothesize that interpersonal attributes can be crucial in micro-level power negotiations. Our analyses reveal that along with mentioning eco-nomic and political resources, institutional and organizational position, andconnectedness in influence networks—themes common in elite theory—elites also identify the interpersonal attributes of personality and respect assources of social power in their own right. Projection of positive personalattributes assists in the exercise of power; exposing traits with negative con-notations can be a detriment Elites display personal attributes while employ-ing impression management, thus developing a social identity used tomanipulate interpersonal relations. We conclude by offering a series of sen-sitizing principles to guide an understanding of how interpersonal sources ofsocial power are used in elite power negotiations.

How well do theories of elites' sources of social power match the reality as perceivedby the elites themselves? In the elite theory literature, sources of social power are typi-cally and primarily defined as having access to resources, occupying strategic positions,and operating in networks of influence (Domhoff 2002; Form and Miller I960; Mills1956). However, surprisingly few researchers have asked the elites themselves whatthey consider important sources of social power. As such, some sources may be miss-ing from traditional definitions, waiting to be revealed by the elites themselves.

'Please contact the second auttior at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology. PolishAcademy of Sciences. Room 211, 72 Nowy Swiat, 00-330 Warsaw, Poland, dubrow.2@osü.edu. The authors thank Sara Bradley for her assistance in collecting and coding the dataand for her comments on earlier drafts of the paper. We also thank Jim Moody, Lisa Keister,William H. Form, and Kazimierz M. Slomczynski for their comments and suggestions andthe River City Area Study research team for their help in collecting the data. We also grate-fully acknowledge the excellent comments and invaluable suggestions provided by thethree anonymous reviewers and the editors of Socioiogical Focus. We conducted most ofthe research and data analysis at the Ohio State University.

320 SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS

We use a form of the constructivist approach to understanding power in listeningto elites' definitions of their sources of social power (Harris 2006; Schwalbe et al.2000). Common to the constructivist approach is that people live within socially con-structed realities where interactions with friends, strangers, co-workers, and familydetermine the meaning of social things (Hall 1972, 1995; Lemert 2005). In a recipro-cal relationship between methods and theory-building, constructivist methods allowfor actor-led improvements to social theory (Charmaz 1983). By listening to actors'definitions of reality, researchers discover how actors create their social world. Someconstructivists argue that mainstream sociology's reluctance to explicitly integrate theconstructivist program not only perpetuates the misnomer that constructivist-mindedtheories such as symbolic interactionism have nothing to add to debates on power andsocial inequality, but that theoretical development in these major subdisciplines canremain stunted as a result (Dennis and Martin 2005; Schwalbe et al. 2000).

As both elites and the researchers who study them work in an environment ofimperfect information, the constructivist approach has both advantages and disad-vantages. Much like any actor embedded in a social milieu, elites are likely to definereality as they have personally experienced it. In the midst of their power networks,elites may not recognize all potential sources of social power; insider's knowledge canact as blinders to the entirety of the social scene. However, insider's knowledge alsoenables unique insights that are hidden from outsiders' views. Moreover, analysis ofelites entirely guided by researcher's definitions of power sources can serve to reinforcepreconceptions that should be redefined (Charmaz 1983:110-111). In this sense, theadvantages of the constructivist approach outweigh the disadvantages.

While symbolic interactionists engage in power theory, the extent to which theyhave done so is unclear: some, like Dennis and Martin (2005), claim that "far fromneglecting the phenomena of power, much interactionist work is actually about powerrelations and their enactment" (197-8), and others, such as Prus (1999), argue that,"interactionists hadn't said much about power in any sustained or systematic fashion"(xiv).' We take a step beyond the debate by acknowledging that symbolic interac-tionism has much to say about power. Prus (1999) argues that the interactionist view-point is both "amenable to considerations of the ways in which power is brought intoexistence" and provides a unique methodology for analyzing power (10); we agree.What is missing from the literature is an accounting of actors' personal attributes thatenable them to exercise power in microsituations.

We contribute both to elite research and to a constructivist, symbolic interaction-ist understanding of power in two main ways. First, by analyzing a dataset of com-munity elites, we empirically demonstrate how constructivist methods can be asuperior way of identifying sources of social power. Second, by interpreting ourempirical results with symbolic interactionist theory, we specify the mechanismsthrough which differentially resourced actors are able to define situations. In using asymbolic interactionist framework and by allowing the elites themselves to definepower sources as they have grown to understand them, we provide new directions forelite research.

HOW DO ELITES DEFINE INFLUENCE? 321

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONSPower is inherently relational (Dennis and Martin 2005), requiring at least two actors:one to wield and one to yield. Classic elite theorists define power in the Weberian senseas the probability a person or a group has to realize their will despite the resistance ofothers (Weber 1946a). Some argue that power is a capacity of one actor to change thebehavior of another (Dahl 1961) or is a relationship in which one actor is dispropor-tionately able to avoid negative sanctions (Rossi 1957:425). According to all defini-tions, power operates within microsituations (Collins 2004:112-115; Dennis andMartin 2005; Prus 1999).

Theories of elites' sources of social power focus on the interrelated themes ofresources, positions, and networks. By "resources," elite theorists generally refer towealth ownership and political capital, whether through being in the upper class(DomhofF2002) or as a captain of industry (Mills 1956). By "positions," elite theoristsgenerally refer to organizational and institutional locations in the influence system, suchas being part of policy think tanks, or simply being a leader of an organization with largesums of political capital (DomhofF 2002). By "networks," elites are known to otherelites and operate within elite systems where personal ties, or social capital, allow elitesto realize needs and wants (Knoke 1994). Elites forge influence networks through face-to-face interaction (Collins 2004:258-296).

For elites working at the community level, participation in community affairs alsoacts as a source of power (Form and Miller 1960; Hunter 1953). For community elites,sustained and meaningful participation is necessary for the creation and maintenanceof their sources of social power—generating income, keeping their organizational posi-tion, and forging networks. Even for community elites with strong ties to the nationalelite—such as CEOs of national or multinational organizations—maintaining ties tothe community by serving on various arts boards and local charities enhances andentrenches their power sources.

Though often coexisting and cooperating, these sources are also unequally distrib-uted in the elite population. For example, managers of community civic organizationsmay not have great wealth at their disposal, but are nonetheless necessary for facili-tating community projects. Resources may be a source of power without an organi-zational position, as in the case of a billionaire retiree of whom others solicitdonations. Cultural elites such as clergy may have neither the resources nor the posi-tion in powerful organizations, but they may be key nodes in an influence networkbecause well-connected elites consider them important. In all cases, to be consideredelite, each must possess resources, occupy a strategic position, or be included in influ-ence networks.

In addition to these, Weber (1946a) discusses charisma as a potential source ofsocial power. Defined as "an extraordinary quality of a person, regardless of whetherthis quality is actual, alleged, or presumed" (295), charisma is used to legitimate rule.Through explaining the uses of charisma, Weber concludes that personal attributesare means through which one can seize power. To maintain power, charismatic figures


find it necessary to continually put on a performance that displays these personalattributes (Collins 1975:302).

In the day-to-day life of American community elites, charisma works in concertwith resources, positions, and networks, but the importance of charisma in relationto the other sources depends on the context of the interaction. In situations wherepersonal ties are paramount—such as in ad hoc organizations—charisma is of greatimportance (Collins 1975:292-3). However, charisma is a placeholder for times whentraditional or rational-legal forms of authority (re)emerge. As Weber states: "It is thefate of charisma, whenever it comes into the permanent institutions ofa community,to give way to powers of tradition or of rational socialization" (1946a:253). Whereinteractions are structured through tradition or rational-legal observance, charisma isof lesser importance (Collins 1975:286-347).

INCORPORATING THE SYMBOLICINTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE

In symbolic interactionism, actors at the microlevel produce a socially constructedreality by forging social objects subject to negotiation and renegotiation under vary-ing contexts; in recent years, symbolic interactionism has seen a resurgence of criticaldebate on how these interactions create meso- and macrolevel structures that, in turn,become the contexts in which microlevel actors negotiate social objects (Blumer1969; Harris 2006). Thus, symbolic interactionism provides theoretical links betweenthe micro-, meso-, and macrolevels (Hall 1995; Schwalbe et al. 2000).

We embrace this resurgence; our perspective comes from the interactionist literaturethat considers power as a (re) negotiation between differentially resourced actors whohave divergent interests (Bourdieu 1991; Dennis and Martin 2005; Hall 1972; Prus1999). Hall (1972) analyzes politics as an aspect of negotiated order, thereby arrivingat a uniquely symbolic interactionist definition of power: "Power . . . is achieved bycontrolling, influencing, and sustaining your definition of the situation" (51). Prus(1999) argues that power is best seen as an "intersubjective accomplishment" betweenunequal actors negotiating reality. Prus takes an extreme position on the subjectivity ofpower, arguing that it exists only when actors define the situation as a power negotia-tion. While not symbolic interactionist, Bourdieu's (1991) notion of symbolic poweris akin to it, as it refers to control over others' perception of reality.

Interactionists rarely attempt to identify the sources with which actors wield power.While Hall (1972) and Schwalbe and colleagues (2000) agree that power is interactionbased, they do not explicitly discuss the sources of these differential abilities. Schwalbeand colleagues (2000) theorize how microlevel interactions within the negotiated ordershape inequality across institutions; in analyzing the political arena. Hall (1972:49-69)argues similarly. Like the classic elite theorists, they infer these processes without usingthe constructivist approach in asking power wielders about their sources of social power.

We build on interactionist theoretical work by identifying the sources of socialpower within the negotiated order. Identifying the interpersonal attributes noted by


the actors themselves engenders a more thorough understanding of how power oper-ates at the microlevel. To demonstrate how power source identification enhances eliteresearch and the interactionist perspective, we focus on power processes in whichinteractionist sources are at their most dominant.

Following Hall (1995:51-52), we too invoke Goffman's impression managementas a mechanism through which actors define the situation in the face of resistance.Considering the work of GofFman, interactions may be viewed from a dramaturgicalperspective as a performance, shaped by the environment and audience, and con-structed to provide others with impressions that meet the desired goals of the actor(Goffman 1959:17). During the performance, the actor presents a social face, that is,a self-image that lives up to the audience's expectations (Goffman 1967:9).

For our purposes, the most important aspect of this perspective is that the indi-vidual develops an identity as a function of this interaction with others. These iden-tities are social objects subject to (re)negotiation, comprised of personal attributes andused in social negotiations including the wielding ofpower.

Two kinds of personal attributes—personality and respect—can be regarded assources ofpower in their own right. Personality traits are akin to the Weberian notionof charisma; they are positively regarded personal attributes used to wield power.Empirical evidence suggests that personality traits contribute to status attainment,particularly in negotiating the labor market (Bowles and Gintis 2002:10-12).

Of the elite theorists. Hunter's (1953) study of community elites comes closest toan analysis of personality as a base of social power. Hunter (1953:171-206) examinedthe "more private aspects of power" displayed in business luncheons, club meetings,and similar informal interaction rituals of the elite. In considering Hunter's vignettes,we suggest a shift from the Weberian focus on positive personal attributes used incharismatic authority relations to an emphasis on the interactional connotations ofpositively and negatively perceived personality traits. Both kinds influence positionwithin the elite network and, ultimately, the ability to define the situation.

To illustrate, we recall Hunter's (1953:171-206) tale of a community elite who"was a powerful leader" and "very influential in the legislature" (197). Within his elitenetwork, the man "had been considered crude by many of the leaders in the com-munity," continuing to "'bully and browbeat' his way in matters" (197-8). Anglingfor the chairmanship of the large company in which he worked, he was passed over.Eventually, he lost his overall position ofpower in the community: "The writer asked[another community elite] if [the man's] position had changed in community affairsbecause of his being 'eased out' . . . and the reply was affirmative" (198). The impli-cation was clear; negatively perceived personality traits within that elite networkformed the basis of ostracism and a decline in social power.

Bourdieu's (1991) notion of symbolic capital can be read as an elaboration ofWeber's concept of status honor, of which respect is a close relation. We regard respectas a form of symbolic capital that can shield one from harm and extract deference rit-uals during power negotiations (Anderson 1999:66-106). Respect becomes a sourceofpower in two ways: it can precede the actor when entering into power negotiations,serving as a form of background knowledge shared by the participants, or it may


emerge during the course of the interaction under the employ of impression man-agement, possibly as a result of participants perceiving positively viewed and com-munally accepted personality traits.

The relative importance of personality and respect depends on context.Interpersonal attributes of personality and respect must be recognized as legitimate byother actors during power negotiations. In the rational-legal negotiated order, whererules are codified and patterns of association firmly established, personality andrespect are of lesser importance. In situations where the form of social organization isbased on personal ties—for example. Hunter's luncheons, club meetings, and simi-larly informal social situations—charisma wins the day and personality and respectgrow in importance.

OUR THEORETICAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESISAn outline of our theoretical model is as follows. We assume that the elite are com-prised of actors who negotiate power relations by displaying a social face and identity.Fellow members of the elite within their sphere of domination witness and recognizethe interpersonal attributes within these displays. To define the situation throughimpression management, the elite members display their personality traits. Respect isa quality that either precedes the elite member or is generated during the interaction.While thematically distinct concepts, personality and respect can be related so thatpositively viewed personality traits are respected commodities.

As an illustration, let us take the example of a local real estate developer seeking towin a lucrative construction contract in the university district of a large midwesterncity. Winning the bid means negotiating with other elites, including the president ofthe university and members of city council who have the power to grant zoning andinfluence the decision of the committee that decides who gets what contracts. In sucha city there are usually multiple bids, a number of which come from equally qualifiedrival real estate developers. They must negotiate in various staged encounters, makingdeals and producing winning boardroom presentations, all the while using theirresources, positions, and networks. If bids are relatively equal, the line between win-ning and losing may be the real estate developer's personality and cache of respect. Ifhis or her personality is looked upon favorably by the elites and if the developer hasa reputation as a person who can "get things done" or "be a leader," these seeminglyintangible and extraordinary qualities become ascendant as sources of power in theirown right. In the end, the winning real estate developer realized his or her will, despitethe concerted efforts of rivals.

Our main hypothesis is that elites identify personality and respeet as sources of socialpower in their own right. We assume that elites recognize and acknowledge the legiti-macy of these interpersonal attributes within microlevel power negotiations. We donot expect to find personality and respect as sole sources of power, but rather that theyoperate in conjunction with resources, positions, and networks.


DATA AND METHODSWe use the River City Area Study (RCAS), a representative sample of 312 commu-nity elites who live and work in a large midwestern city with an MSA population ofover one million. River City is one of the most populous and prosperous cities in thestate. The state government is the single largest source of employment in the area.River City is also the headquarters of numerous national and international corpora-tions, including insurance and financial institutions, clothing, chemical and steelindustries, and restaurant and other food service chains. In addition. River City ishome to one of the largest universities in the United States. Because River City sup-ports a diverse range of large and powerful industries, it provides an ideal setting tostudy community elites.

RCAS is a unique data set with individuals in positions of influence within the localcommunity as the units of analysis. While studies of community elites typically focuson the business and political sectors (Dahl 1961; Hunter 1953), these data containinformation on individuals from these and the civic, cultural, and religious sectors aswell.^ In comparison to prior efforts, RCAS data contain detailed social backgroundinformation on community elites, including family of origin, educational and workhistories, and wealth, income, and family status. Our definition of community elite isadapted from Mills (1956), Domhoff (2002), and Form and Miller (I960): an indi-vidual who, through their resources, positions in organizations and institutions, andstatus in elite-centered networks can initiate, facilitate, or terminate local projects.

With a team of researchers, we used the positional and reputational methods todetermine our population of local elites. In the positional method, researchers usedirectories and periodicals as a sampling frame. In the reputational method, researchersask informants to identify individuals whom they believe are the most inñuentialmembers of the community. Each method is employed extensively in communitypower research; employing both generates a more comprehensive list than using eitheralone (Knoke 1994).

For the positional method, we compiled a list of organizations using local news andbusiness magazines, newspapers, and city information booklets (Perrucci and Pilisuk1970). With these sources we identified the top ranked organizations in River City inthree of the sectors: economic (business—including hospitals, finance, and realestate), political (including city council and partners from the largest law firms), andcivic (education boards, social services, and labor unions). From the top ranked orga-nizations we obtained the names of individuals occupying the uppermost positions.

When formal ranking was difficult, and for cases in which the person was morefamous than their formal organizational position would suggest, we used the reputa-tional method (Hunter 1953). We sent team members into the field to ask community-based experts to list the major players in their domains (D'Antonio and Erickson 1962;D'Antonio et al. 1961). We used this informal panel of local knowledgeables to iden-tify members of the elite in the media (radio, television, and newspapers), cultural(arts, hospitality), and religious sectors (leaders of the largest places of worship, from


churches to synagogues). The RCAS team gathered these data in face-to-face and tele-phone interviews during 2001 and 2002 using a semistructured survey instrument.^

RCAS has an overall response rate of 34 percent; considering the difficulty ofreaching this population, this rate is standard for elite studies."^ Obtaining an inter-view from an individual in a position of power is a difficult task. In general, commu-nity elites are not open to personal interviews for media or sociological inquiry, unlessthey feel it will benefit them. Further, individuals in positions of influence maintainseveral layers of gatekeepers—secretaries, assistants, and automated phone systems—responsible for monitoring and censoring information. Negotiating these barriers thatinsulate potential respondents from social researchers can be difficult and is one of thereasons studies of this nature suffer from low response rates. In the end, sheer persis-tence may have played a role in the success of the data collection.

Our methods are based on the Chicago school of symbolic interactionism, empha-sizing the need to "get inside the actor's world and . . . see the world as the actor sees it"(Meltzer and Petras 1970). In contrast with the Iowa school, which attempts to under-stand the individual through a series of researcher conceived categories, our construc-tivist-minded approach allows the respondent to guide the researcher (Harris 2006).

To identify community elites' sources of social power we coded an open-endedquestion from the RCAS survey instrument that simply asks, "In your opinion, howwould a person be considered influential in the local community?"

While we recognize the potential for a theoretical difference between influence andpower, following Rose (1967:301-02) we feel justified in blurring the distinctionsince our purpose is to capture the thinking of highly educated yet nonacademic elitesfor whom the theoretical distinction is not personally relevant.^

Eschewing the variable analysis of the type derided by Blumer (1956), we beganour analysis by using an inductive coding method situated in grounded theory(Charmaz 1983). We initially identified nine main themes of the elites' perceivedsources of power that continuously emerged throughout the interviews. After weexhausted the list of possible themes, we used inter-rater reliability methods to vali-date the initial coding. Next, to facilitate the retrieval of the coded information, weentered the data into NUDIST. We compared the themes of power acquired throughinductive observation of the data to those identified in elite theories.

FINDINGSThe composition of River City's elite are dominated by economically secure, white,middle-aged men who acquired advanced degrees, hold managerial jobs, came froman advantaged social class background, and profess to some denomination ofChristianity (see Appendix 1). Our population is overwhelmingly male (78 percentmen and 22 percent women) and white (84 percent white and 16 percent nonwhite).Our respondents' average age is between 49 and 51 years of age. As for education, 56percent have a graduate degree. As an indicator of class background, 46 percent hada father whose highest educational level was a bachelor's degree or greater (of whom


about 22 percent had a graduate degree). In those surveyed, 44 percent are Protestant,25 percent are Catholic, 6 percent are Jewish, and 25 percent claim "none" or "other."About 40 percent affiliate most with the Republican Party, 34 percent with theDemocrats, and 26 percent claim "Independent" or "other."

River City elites are well placed in terms of resources and positions. As for resources,half report a net family income of $200,000 or more, with 4 percent reporting onemillion dollars or more. About 70 percent hold high-level managerial positions withintheir organization.

As measured by sector composition, elite networks are largely composed of the eco-nomic (36 percent), political (14 percent), civic (29 percent) sectors, and, to a lesserextent, of the cultural (11 percent), the religious (8 percent) sectors.

The Sources of Social Power

We identified nine power source themes: ability to effect change, resource control, politi-cal clout, strategic position, being well-known, connections, community participation, per-sonality, and being respected. On average, respondents stated two of the nine themes.The main description of the nine themes appears in Appendix 2. Table 1 shows thatelite theorists discussed seven of the nine themes identified by the elites themselves.Elites talked in general about the ability to effect change, which is a principal compo-nent of the definition of power but is not itself a source of power. Other themes matchelite theorists' conceptions of power sources. Mills (1956) and Domhoff (2002), speak-ing mainly about national power elites, focus most on the sources of power pertainingto resources, positions, and networks. Elites in our sample also mentioned thesethemes in the form of resource control, political clout, strategic position, connections,and being well-known. Form and Miller (I960) include all of these elements, but—since they study community elites—their definition of networks is what the elites inour study refer to as community participation.

Because we are concerned here with the micrbsituational bases of power, we focuson personality 3s\á being respected {íor di list of descriptive quotations, see Appendix 3).Confirming our hypothesis, elites identified personality and respect as importantmeans to exercise power. Personality includes personal characteristics that make themappear more or less attractive. Being respected pertains to having earned the respect ofthe local community and community leaders. These interpersonal attributes have notbeen emphasized as power sources in the elite literature.

Considering themes common to both personality and respect serves to confirmand enhance the interactionist perspective. First, as theorized, power sources areunevenly distributed in the elite; some have certain qualities, others not. Thus, powernegotiators within microsituations are differentially challenged in their attempt todefine the situation. That elites understand this is in evidence by the way somephrased their response. For example, one said that, "they can be personally motivatedenough and charismatic enough to draw public attention to an issue," noting that notall are "charismatic enough" [emphasis the authors']. In analyzing power negotiations,researchers must understand that each participant will attempt to define the situationin the manner in which their personal store of resources will allow.


Table 1. Theorists, Definitions of Elites, and Theme Types

Theorists Definitions of Eûtes

Mills (1956) "The power elite is composed of menThe Power Elite whose positions enable them to

transcend the ordinary environmentsof ordinary men and women; they arein positions to make decisions havingmajor consequences Immediatelybelow the elite are the professionalpoliticians of the middle levels of power,in the Congress and in the pressuregroups, as well as among the new andold upper classes of town and city andregion . . . hierarchies of state andcorporation and military."

Domhoff (2002) "Members of the upper class who haveWho Rules taken on leadership roles in theAmerica? corporate community and the policy

network, along with high-levelemployees in corporations and policynetwork organizations."

Form and Miller "Public spirited leaders . . . locally(1960) powerful people who could get thingsIndustry, Labor, done in the city or who could kill localand Community projects... the most influential

persons in city-wide affairs."

Tiieme Types

Ability to effect change,resource control,political clout, strategicposition, connections

Same as Mills

Same as Mills andDomhoff, but includescommunityparticipation and beingwell-known

Second, within an elite network, elites understand the perceptual bases of socialpower in which interpersonal attributes must be recognized as legitimate by otherelites. Thus, someone who is influential is someone "whom business leaders trust andrespect," or one who "give[s] people the impression that [he or she is] credible,respectable, etc."

Third, as Collins (1975) and other interactionist-minded theorists suggest, mainte-nance of interpersonal attributes as sources of social power requires constant perfor-mance. Consistent with this argument, elites often phrased their responses to conveypresent effort: "heing effective, hardworking, and persistent" [emphasis the authors'].Status as a respected leader is tenuous, requiring constant impression management andmaintenance of identity. If the elite member stops giving good advice, his or her statusas a respected leader dwindles, even if wealth or political clout does not.

Finally, traits such as the ubiquitous "work ethic" can be read as self-serving andrather as an attribute used by both elites and masses. Examples of this include, "beingeffective, hardworking, and persistent," and having "commitment, passion, follow


through." Non-elite-specific attributes are universally recognized personality prerequi-sites: If someone is viewed as lazy and uninterested, he or she cannot count on per-sonality or respect as a source of social power. Negatively perceived attributes can be adetriment, particularly in cases where other sources do not compensate.

Subthemes peculiar to personality and respect provide nuances to the interactionistperspective on power wielding. Within the personality theme, two subthemesemerged: desirable vs. undesirable traits and personality as employed in impressionmanagement. In regard to desirable vs. undesirable personality traits. Hunter's (1953)vignette proved instructive fifty years on. One respondent described in detail the valueof desirable personality traits when pursuing influence in the community: "[It is] likebuilding a house, you start with the foundation—credibility and good reputation.Even with good ideas you won't get anywhere. Personal integrity and a consistent hon-est message. People know they can count on you." In the same breath, this person alsomentioned undesirable traits: "Not egotistical or self centered—hurts credibility."

Elites also recognize the value of impression management through displays of pos-itively viewed personality traits. One put it plainly: if you want to be considered influ-ential in the community, "give people the impression that you are credible,respectable, etc." Thus, personality must be viewed by others as positive to be suc-cessfully used in impression management.

In the identification of respect, three subthemes emerged: respect as dependent onthe perception of others, personal and professional respect, and the connectionbetween respect and personality. Respect's perceptual base was frequently noted by theelites; for example, to be influential, you "need peers that respect you." Like person-ality, respect must be recognized by the other participants in the power negotiation;unlike personality, respect is sometimes dependent upon whether influential sub-groups within the elite network recognize it. Again, someone who is influential is"someone whom business leaders trust and respect."

Dispensing desired knowledge or advice is oft:en a way to obtain respect, but elitesin our study focused on respect as generated through personality displays. For instance,someone is respected because they are "trustworthy." Influential members of the com-munity are "respected for work ethic and character, not material success. Respected fortruthfulness." Another mentioned that elites are those who have "respect from othersby good follow-through, honest[y]." Elites can also be respected for what they do intheir professional lives: "First, you and your business have to be respected." Since pro-fessionals' personal and work lives are often intertwined (see Hochschild 2001), RiverCity elites rarely made the distinction between personal and professional respect.

DISCUSSIONUsing constructivist methods we find that the elite theorists' themes of resources,positions, and networks are also mentioned by the elites themselves. However, elitetheorists typically ignore symbolic interactionist concepts, and as such they missedtwo crucial bases of power: personality and respect.


As Machiavelli ([1532] 1981) thought, personal attributes can be key sources ofsocial power. Through impression management and the force of personality, elitesproject a competent and successful identity. The projection of positive personal attrib-utes assists the elites in wielding power within the community; negatively viewedtraits can be a detriment. Elites display personal attributes and employ impressionmanagement within a variety of encounters, developing social identities used tomanipulate interpersonal relations.

To summarize our contributions to the elite and interactionist literatures, we pos-tulate six sensitizing principles that guide an understanding of how sources of socialpower are used in power negotiations:

Principle of recognition. For power sources to lead to one actor defining the situa-tion despite the will of other actors, these sources must be recognized as legitimate byothers in their sphere of domination.

Principle of unequal distribution. Power sources are unevenly distributed in elitenetworks.

Principle of context. In the rational-legal negotiated order, personality and respectare of lesser importance. Where the form of social organization is based on personalties, personality and respect grow in importance. Joining these three principles, weargue the following: Actors engage in power negotiations using different powersources. They will attempt to define the situation using their most prominent powersources, so long as those sources are legitimated by others within that context. Actorswill seek out those interactional contexts in which their most prominent powersources can be deployed; if their power is based on organizational position, they willseek out rational-legal contexts; if they have a well-respected identity and a personal-ity to match, they will seek out informal, socially loose contexts.

Principle of constant performance. To maintain interpersonal attributes as sources ofsocial power, actors must constantly display them.

Priticiple of personality. Personality traits can be either beneficial or detrimental inpower negotiations, depending on how these attributes are viewed by others.

Principle of respect. Actors tend to focus on respect as a trait generated through per-sonality displays.

As we consider community studies of the past, we believe that what our respon-dents did not say suggests that what elites consider as sources of social power changesover time. Weber, in studying communities in the beginning of the twentieth cen-tury, found that religious affiliation and membership in certain civic clubs were pre-requisites for becoming influential (1946b). Weber interpreted this as a sign thataffiliation and membership in certain groups are markers of positively viewed per-sonal attributes, for example, morality and holding the "proper" values. Such affilia-tions bestowed social legitimation on the would-be elite—that they were moral.


upstanding members of the community—but did not necessarily legitimate them asprofessionals. In this twenty-first-century study. River City elites did not mentionreligious or civic affiliation as a prerequisite. As for morality, they made only a fewpassing mentions. For example, elites are those who "[have] credible insight, com-mand respect, [and have a] political and ethical response to [a] situation." Note thatreligious and civic affiliation differ from the previously mentioned "community par-ticipation" in that local elites have greater leeway in choice of venue; there is little costin the choice between serving on children's hospital boards and with philanthropicorganizations.

In this study, when elites speak of personality or the generation of respect, we areclear that these are traits in addition to resources, positions, and networks, but areunable to determine exactly which traits are valuable or detrimental. Some of therespondents mentioned positive traits: being honest, truthful, ethical, credible, reli-able, diplomatic, helpful, articulate, a good listener; and some mentioned negativetraits: being egotistical, self-centered, and dictatorial. Others provided possibly self-serving and nonspecific traits such as commitment, passion, good worker, hardwork-ing, and persistent that are not peculiar to the wielding of power. However wellpersonality can be measured, status attainment research has not been able to deter-mine the extent to which personality is a proxy for some unmeasured skill (Bowlesand Gintis 2002:12). Specifying particular personality traits that enhance power—bythemselves or in the generation of respect—is a subject for future research.

Are the interpersonal attributes of personality and respect universal sources ofsocial power, or are they only used by the elite? To properly address this question, weencourage replications of this study in other contexts and for other populations. Asimitar study to ours focusing on national elites can be done by coding autobiogra-phies of elites—for example, CEOs and politicians—for how they describe powernegotiations.^ Most important, we encourage using the constructivist approach tofoster actor-led improvements to social theory.

Alexis Yamokoski is Director of Research for a marketing and advertising firm inColumbus, Ohio. She received her PhD from the Department of Sociology at theOhio State University. Her research, "Wealth Inequality: Effects of Gender, MaritalStatus, and Parenthood on Asset Accumulation," is featured in the journal FeministEconomics. She also studies the effects of gender and family status on elites' perceptionsof well-being. In recent research, she incorporates a comparative perspective to exam-ine the stability of Poland's economic elite during a period of radical social change.

Joshua Kjerulf Dubrow received his PhD from the Department of Sociology at theOhio State University. He is currently a research specialist at the Institute ofPhilosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw, Poland. His workhas appeared in such journals as Social Forces and i\ve Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion, and he was a guest editor for the Winter 2008 issue of the InternationalJournal of Sociology on political inequality. His research includes quantitative andqualitative explorations into inequalities, intersectionality, and interactionism.


Appendix 1. Selected Demographics of River City Elites (%)

GenderMaleFemale

RaceWhiteNonwhite

ReligionProtestantCatholicJewishNone or other

Father's educationHigh school or lessCollegeGraduate degree

Respondent's educationHigh school or lessCollegeGraduate degree

Marital statusMarriedSingle

N = 312

Appendix 2. Typology of Elite

7822

8416

44250626

482422

83556

8119

Perceptions with

Political partyRepublicanDemocratIndependent or other

Age25-4041-5051-6061 and older

SectorEconomicPoliticalCivicCulturalReligious

Income$99,999 or less$100,000-$199,999$200,000-$499,999$500,000 or greater

Definitions and Descriptive Quotations

403426

17343612

361429118

23252626

Perceptions

Ability to effectchange'

Resource control

Political clout

Description

The aptitude to make things happen and to see that tasks areaccomplished inside and/or outside one's sphere of influence."Making things happen, being active instead of just conceptualizing afundraising project, putting wheels under the project."Having control over general community resources. "Power andmoney: that is how people are seen as influential," and "economicpower, power of their organization, political power."Includes having influence within the political realm of the communityincluding either direct or indirect involvement with the localgovernment. "Involved in administration of city, politicalorganizations, or municipal development," and "ability to impact thepolitical process or have political influence on the elected officials."

continues


Appendix 2 continued

Perceptions

Strategic position

Description

The possibility of holding a notable position of influence within thecommunity, within one's own organization, or within one's influentialfamily. "Leadership position like president of a bank." "Theirposition in their organization. Their activity in outside local groupslike on the board of [a local museum]."

Includes being recognized and having a high level of visibility withinthe community. "Known by community, good reputation, and goodtrack record" and "visibility, viability, credibility."

Having network links and personal relationships with otherinfluentials within the community. "Being able to have the ear ofmajor decision makers—continually socialize with them—aggressively engage with them."

Being committed to one's local community through involvement."Work with a variety of community agencies. Work closely with otherleaders. Understand the needs of the community and lobby thosewith power to educate local community and area leaders."

Personality traits that a person may possess that will make themappear more or less attractive to other people. "Knowledgeable,truthful, diplomatic, collaborative, interested in solution...notdictatorial" and "credibility, trustworthy, effective, articulate."

Pertains to one having earned the respect of the local community andcommunity leaders. "If they are respected, knowledgeable aboutissues, make recommendations people would listen—people turn tofor advice—if the community recognizes them as having influence."

' The ability to effect change translates into the aptitude to facilitate community projects and to seethat tasks are accomplished inside and/or outside one's sphere of influence. Ability is an attempt bythe respondent to define influence without citing a specific source of it; as such, we do not considerit as a source of social power.

Being well-known

Connections

Communityparticipation

Personality

Being respected

Appendix 3. Quotations Describing Personality and Respect

Personality

"[It is] like building a house, you start with the foundation—Credibility and good reputation.Even with good ideas you won't get anywhere. Personal integrity and a consistent honestmessage. People know they can count on you. Not egotistical or self centered—hurtscredibility."

"They can be personally motivated enough and charismatic enough to draw public attentionto an issue."

"To prove yourself as reliable and helpful."

"Credible insight, command respect, political and ethical response to situation."

continues


Appendix 3 continued

Personality"Commitment, passion, follow- through ... well liked""Credibility, demonstrate good leadership, good worker""Being effective, hardworking, and persistent."

"Gives people the impression that you are credible, respectable, etc.""Articulate, good listener."

Respect"Have gained [others'] respect for their opinions, and people are willing to listen to them,and they get people to listen by gaining respect."

"Respected for work ethic and character, not material success. Respected for truthfulness."

"Respect from others by good follow through, honest, showing commitment and passionfor what you do."

"First, you and your business have to be respected.""Need peers that respect you.""Well respected by other local leaders.""If they're listened to and their opinion is respected."

"By their reputation and accomplishments and making suggestions to decision-makers.""Either by having their views and thoughts accepted or sought when issues are underconsideration.""Someone whom business leaders trust and respect."

NOTES1. Our debate is not necessarily with power theorists, per se—though their contributions areimportant—but with elite theorists who have identified sources of social power. The search forsources of social power in all human relations has a long history (Piven and Cloward 2005:36-37).Power theorists engage in denning power, but do not often identify the sources used to wield it(e.g., Lukes 2005), while elite theorists focus mainly on the sources and typically adopt someoneelse's definition of power (with the exception of Dahl 1961). We engage symbolic ¡nteractionistpower theories insomuch as they allow us to understand how power wielders in the elite use theirsources of social power—defined here as interpersonal attributes—to define the situation.2. Assignment to a sector category was based on various factors, including the source thatidentified the person as a member of the elite (e.g., if the person's name was pulled from a ros-ter of local politicians, they were categoriz.ed in the politics sector), occupation, the functionof the person's organization (e.g., if the organization for which the person worked was pri-marily responsible for distributing aid for impoverished families, they were categorized in thesocial services sector), and the best judgments of the RCAS organizers.3. A few respondents could only manage, or only agreed, to complete the interview over thetelephone.4. The response rate per sector was as follows: 29 percent for economic, 37 percent for polit-ical, 41 percent for cultural, 55 percent for civic, and 47 percent for religious. We attribute


distinctions in the response rates of sectors to differences in the quality of gatekeeping. Theeconomic sector had many effective gatekeepers, while we experienced limited to no gate-keeping in the civic and religious sectors. It may be that the organizational culture in varioussectors influences access to their elites. For statistics on response rates where top managers arethe target population, see Baruch (1999:431); For a discussion on problems with securinginterviews with politicians, see Maisel and Stone (1998). The respondents in the RCASreceived no material incentive or compensation for their interviews.

5. Some argue that influence differs from power in that the influencer does not use sanctionsto alter the behavior of the influenced (Form and Miller 1960). For the debate on influenceversus power, see Bachrach and Baratz (1963), Polsby (1980:Chapter 11), and Stone (1989).6. We thank one of the journal's anonymous reviewers for this insight.7. This was suggested by one of the journal's anonymous reviewers.

REFERENCESAnderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the Street. New York: W. W. Norton.Bachrach, Peter and Morton S. Baratz. 1963. "Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical

Framework." American Political Science Review 27:632—42.Baruch, Yehuda. 1999. "Response Rate in Academic Studies—^A Comparative Analysis." Human

Relations 54:421-58.Blumer, Herbert. 1956. "Sociological Analysis and the 'Variable.'" American Sociological

Review 21:683-90.. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.Bourdieu, Pierre. \99\. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Cintis. 2002. "Schooling in Capitalist America Revisited."

Sociology of Education 75:1—18.Charmaz, Kathy. 1983. "The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation." Pp.

109-26 in Contemporary Field Research, edited by R. Emerson. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Collins, Randall. 1975. Conflict Sociology: Totvard an Explanatory Science. New York: Academic

Press.. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

D'Antonio, William V. and Eugene C. Erickson. 1962. "The Reputational Technique as aMeasure of Community Power: An Evaluation Based on Comparative and LongitudinalStudies." American Sociological Review 27:362—76.

D'Antonio, William V., William H. Form, Charles P. Loomis, and Eugene C. Erickson. 1961."Institutional and Occupational Representations in Eleven Community InfluenceSystems." American Sociological Review 26:440—6.

Dennis, A. and P. J. Martin. 2005. "Symbolic Interactionism and the Concept of Power."British Journal of Sociology 56:191—213.

Domhoff, William C. 2002. Who Rules America? Boston, MA: McCraw Hill.Dye, Thomas R. 1986. Who's Running America? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Form, William H. and Delbert C. Miller. 1960. Industry, Labor, and Community. New York:

Harper and Bros.Gerth, Hans and C. Wright Mills. 1946. Erom Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York:

Oxford University Press.


Goffman, Erving. 1959. Interaction Ritual New York: Pantheon.

. 1967. The Presentation of Self in Everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Hail, Peter M. 1972. "A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis of Politics." Sociological Inquiry,

42:35-75.. 1995. "The Gonsequences of Qualitative Analysis fot Sociological Theory: Beyond

the Mictolevel." Sociological Quarterly 36:397-423.Hartis, Scott R. 2006. "Social Gonsttuctionism and Social Inequality: An Introduction to a

Special Issue oí ]CE." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35:223-35.Hochschild, Atlie Russell. 2001. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes

Work. New York: Holt.

Huntet, Floyd. 1953. Community Power Structure. Garden Gity, NY: Anchor Books.Knoke, David. 1994. "Networks of Elite Structure and Decision Making." Pp. 23-45 in

Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, editedby S. Wasserman and J. Galaskiewicz. Thousand Oaks, GA: Sage.

Lemert, Gharles G. 2005. Social Things. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Lukes, Steven. 2005. Potver: A Radical View. 2nd ed. New York: Palgtave Macmillan.Machiavelli, Niccolo. [1532] 1981. The Prince. New York: Penguin Books.Mai.sel, Sandy and Walter Stone. 1998. "The Politics of Government Funded Research: Notes

from the Experience of the Gandidate Emergence Study." PS: Political Science and Politics31:811-7.

Meltzer, Baernard and John W. Petras. 1970. "The Ghicago and Iowa Schools of SymbolicInteractionism." Pp. 3-17 in Human Nature and Collective Behavior: Papers in Honor ofHerbert Blumer, edited by Tamotsu Shibutani. Englewood Gliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mills, G. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.Perrucci, R. and M. Pilisuk. 1970. "Leaders and Ruling Elites: The Interorganizational Bases

of Gommunity Power" American Journal of Sociology 35:1040-57.Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Gloward. 2005. "Rule Making, Rule Breaking, and Power."

Pp. 33-53 in The Handbook of Political Sociology: States, Civil Societies, and Globalization,edited by Thomas Janoski, Robert Alford, Alexander Hicks, and Mildred A. Schwartz.Gambridge, England: Gambridge University Press.

Polsby, Nelson. 1980. Community Power and Political Theory. New Haven, GT: Yale UniversityPress.

Prus, Robert. 1999. Beyond the Power Mystique: Power as Intersubjective Accomplishment.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Rose, Arnold. 1967. The Power Structure. New York: Oxford University Press.Rossi, Peter H. 1957. "Gommunity Dtziuon-Miiang." Administrative Science Quarterly 1:415-43.Schwalbe, Michael, Sandra Godwin, Daphne Holden, Douglas Schrock, Shealy Thompson,

and Michelle Wolkomir. 2000. "Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: AnInteractionist Analysis." Social Forces 79:419-52.

Stone, Glarence. 1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence, KS:University Press of Kansas.

Weber, Max. 1946a. "The Sociology of Gharismatic Authority." Pp. 245-52 in From MaxWeber: Essays in Sociology, edited by Hans Gerth and G. Wright Mills. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

. 1946b. "Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Gapitalism" Pp. 302-21 in From MaxWeber: Essays in Sociology, edited by Hans Gerth and G. Wright Mills. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Documents

How Do Elites Define Influence? Personality and Respect as ... · By "networks," elites are known to other elites and operate within elite systems where personal ties, or social capital,